Most Popular jQuery Plugins of January 2012 - <AUTHOR> http://www.moretechtips.net/2012/02/8-most-popular-jquery-plugins-of.html

<comment><USER2> I was hoping to find a responsive / touch-compatible plugin (for swiping through image collections / slideshows) on that list. I'm sure it was posted on here a few months back. Anyone know of anything like this?

<comment><USER3> Galleria is touch compatible and can adapt to whatever screensize you throw at it: <http://galleria.io/>

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Wow. This is pretty weak. Then again, they're the "most popular plugins of 1 month". Seems pretty faddish to me.

<comment><USER5> Incredibly poor list, can't believe this story has even been up-voted. The year of 2011 would have made just a little bit more sense.

<comment><AUTHOR> Can't believe it too, if you looking for 2011 list check this one: "22 Most Popular jQuery Plugins of 2011" [http://www.moretechtips.net/2011/12/22-most- popular-jquery-p...](http://www.moretechtips.net/2011/12/22-most-popular- jquery-plugins-of-2011.html)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> how did masonry not make that list?

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi todd3834, Masonry made it on previous list: "22 Most Popular jQuery Plugins of 2011" [http://www.moretechtips.net/2011/12/22-most-popular- jquery-p...](http://www.moretechtips.net/2011/12/22-most-popular-jquery- plugins-of-2011.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Also see: <https://github.com/tblobaum/nodeQuery>

It's not a jquery plugin per se but worth checking out. Previous discussion: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3238673></comment>


People Drawn to Conspiracy Theories Share a Cluster of Psychological Features - <AUTHOR> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/people-drawn-to-conspiracy-theories-share-a-cluster-of-psychological-features/ <comment><USER3> This is irresponsible journalism.

>You can spot hallmarks of fake theories, such as internal contradictions in the "evidence" and contentions based on shaky assumptions, psychologists say.

Just look at the many legitimate sources of conflicting information regarding COVID. Hell, many of our medical practices are based on "shaky assumptions" and shoddy survey data, especially in psychology.

Conspiracies happen, speculation is valid and arguably necessary for a healthy society. But this? This is just some kind of weird appeal to authority - recognizing the possibility of conspiracies and attempting to piece them together is not pathological and a society which believes it is it placing itself firmly under an unyielding authoritarian boot.

<comment><USER4> Weak evidence is not the same as a shaky assumption, which is not evidence at all.

> Conspiracies happen

As do coincidences. This isn't about _conspiracies_ but about _conspiracy theories_.

A provable conspiracy is two or more agents coming together, even without their awareness of alignment, to achieve a single specific secretive goal as qualified with evidence. Qualified evidence is any single or series of provable facts that directly links each participating agent to the secretive goal with intent. The most important part of that is proving intent. A conspiracy theory is a belief there should be a conspiracy but without the necessary qualified evidence.

Coincidence - [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coincidence](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coincidence)

Conspiracy theory (nonsense) - [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory)

Conspiracy - [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy)

Intention - [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intention](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intention)

Given the terms I find it's not at all far fetched to conclude there exists some common mental health defect that allows conspiracy theories to flourish amongst some people and not others.

<comment><USER5> Conspiracy theory often happens when coincidence becomes unbelievable. (I like the phrase someone else coined in this thread, 'coincidence theory', when we hold onto the coincidence explanation too long.) NSA spying was believed by many long before snowden, because the coincidences were piling up even though intent was not proven.

I don't think it's fair to conclude there's a mental health defect in people more skeptical of the status quo (If we want to go that route, perhaps there is a similar mental health defect that allows belief in improbable coincidence to flourish among some people and not others?).

<comment><USER4> > I don't think it's fair to conclude there's a mental health defect in people > more skeptical of the status quo.

It's not about fair, popularity, perceptions, or belief systems. It is only about the inability to separate evidence from belief. The strength or popularity of the belief does transform that belief into evidence.

<comment><USER5> Let me say it differently then. It isn't _intellectually honest_ to dismiss someone's opinion by claiming them mentally defective. It would be just as easy to say that you're in denial, because you're asking for unreasonably high levels of evidence.

<comment><USER4> I can dismiss conspiracy theories as nonsense, regardless of any mental defect, because they are nonsense. Perhaps that is horribly unfair, but it's entirely intellectually honest. If you want intellectual honesty pursue evidence instead of agreement.

<comment><USER5> a) You're skipping right past my point, that dismissing a conspiracy theory by calling its proponent mentally defective is intellectually dishonest. Also, it comes dangerously close to an _ad homenim_ , if not done right.

b) NSA surveilance was a conspiracy theory 15 years ago. Was that nonsense?

<comment><USER4> > Also, it comes dangerously close to an ad homenim, if not done right.

Equating mental illness or impairment to an ad hominem ignores the medical nature of the subject in preference for an ignorant social stigma. See the last paragraph of this comment to discover what mental illness is according to the medicine: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23329867](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23329867)

<comment><USER5> Citing yourself and a paper that isn't published or peer-reviewed puts you at exactly the same level of evidence that you have expressed such disdain for.

The definition of mental illness has nothing to do with whether what you said is an _ad homenim_. If you were to diagnose someone with a relevant mental illness, _and then_ have a conversation with them which brought their conspiratorial ideas to your attention _for the first time_ , then saying their conspiratorial talk was the result of a mental illness would be legitimate. However, to have a conversation with someone, hear them theorize the existence of a conspiracy, and _then_ conclude they must be part of a set of people with a mental deficiency? That is absolutely an _ad homenim_.

So, again: I don't think it's fair to conclude there's a mental health defect in people more skeptical of the status quo.

<comment><USER4> If you need a more expanded definition that otherwise says much the same things try this: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_disorder#Definition](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_disorder#Definition)

Diagnosing somebody with a broken arm is not a personal attack and neither should be a mental health diagnosis.

> I don't think it's fair

Life isn't fair. Fairness is a subject best left to small children and courts of law. To address your concern though, evidence is not about agreement.

<comment><USER5> > If you need a more expanded definition

Logically speaking, we could be talking about how belief in conspiracy theory is affected by mental deficiency, a preference for apple pie, or a broken arm. Giving me a definition of 'thing-that-is-bad' is irrelevant to its use as a potential _ad homenim_. And as I said - if you already have a diagnosis of the person, then feel free to mention it as a point against their theory of a conspiracy. But if you do not already have that diagnosis, then claiming the theory implies a mental deficiency is absolutely an _ad homenim_ against the theory. The order of the cause and effect matters.

I think you mistook my use of the word "fair". I was using the first definition from merriam-webster: "marked by impartiality and honesty." Maybe I should just keep using "intellectually honest" since that appears to cause less confusion. We do agree on your other point, though, that "evidence is not about agreement." Maybe I should use the phrase 'theorize about the existence of a conspiracy' instead of 'skeptical of the status quo'.

With that addressed: I don't think it's intellectually honest to conclude there's a mental health defect in people who theorize about the existence of a conspiracy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> People try to "debunk" conspiracy theories rationally, when really it's the emotional content that matters.

It's like talking to someone believing their cheating spouse did X, Y, Z crazy thing. If you responded to that person trying to debunk X, Y, and Z rationally you'd just anger them further. What matters is really the underlying anger that they're feeling. Not litigating actual facts. In fact such litigating can feel like an attack or invalidation of the underlying emotion.

Same is true with feeling threatened by the appearance of "gracias" signs at a restaurant. Or a blue collar person losing status in an increasingly knowledge economy.

I feel like to make progress as a society we have to speak to the underlying "emotional truth" and not come across as pedants over facts.

<comment><USER7> Social media is what is making people anxious in the first place. Then they serve as the platform for the circular referencing "proof". Facebook & WhatsApp posts are supported by YouTube videos, are supported by tweets, are supported by more YouTube videos and then back to more Facebook.

So some people I was visiting in a small town started going on about 'chemtrails' they learned about from someone on Facebook. These contrails control the weather, while dispensing chemicals that get into the ground water to control people's minds. They showed me a video on YouTube, it was polished bullshit if I ever saw it. Then there were more FB posts about people who "know the truth".

It was hopeless, even with apps that showed the flight origin and destination of of the planes overhead for commercial cargo, passengers, etc. Apparently hundreds of international and domestic flights are all part of a conspiracy to make it cloudy and dispense chemicals to control the minds of this town. Further, the chemicals are clearly not working since they are even be able to have these thoughts.

I blame social media. The real disaster is coming, this is just the second inning.

<comment><USER8> > Social media is what is making people anxious in the first place.

What you're saying is ignorance is bliss. Without social media, a few phone calls to media houses would have been sufficient to squelch the recent murder of a black male by the police.

The medium is not at fault.

We all hailed Facebook helped organize 'successful' revolutions in some 'oppressive' states.

It's easier to believe tales about people I distrust.

I prefer we focused on ways to increase transparency and fairness in government. That's the conspiracy theory vaccine we need.

<comment><USER7> No, what I am saying is that social media is actually causing mental health issues including anxiety. If anxiety us at the root of people falling for conspiracies, then consider social media the fertilizer and the field.

I haven't hailed FB for squat. I don't even use it, but FB algorithms have been responsible for one genocide already, and I won't give it credit for the Arab Spring even for the small successes that were achieved.

[https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar- facebo...](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebook- genocide.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Point of Information: the phrase "conspiracy theorist" was developed and fielded by the CIA as a counterintelligence effort.

Among other tactics, they wished to be able to use the term as a dismissal of anyone who got information about their real operations. This is very well documented, and is common among intel agencies of many countries.

It is also well documented, that the CIA and others (KGB etc.), have intentionally spread disinformation, from AIDS to Apollo hoaxes, in the same channel as (limited) legitimate information. This tactic is called "poisoning the well," the limited real info is a "limited hangout." If you put those terms into any search, youll find reams of documents detailing examples. Usually, these are the actions of some foreign service, analysed and released for the public service.

When the author began to align obviously false information with more credible things, what he is seeing are these intentional networks of lies that our own services have created. These things are not organic. He identifies common psychological features in these posters, because the intel agencies strongly select based on personality.

Also, how many of the accounts he investigated are bots? Was he able to prove that real individual people were doing this?

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain! Its been debunked already!

<comment><USER10> > "Point of Information: the phrase "conspiracy theorist" was developed and > fielded by the CIA as a counterintelligence effort."

Why do you think this?

I had never heard this before, and to be honest it immediately gave off whacko vibes, so I Googled it and found this article that says it is false - [https://theconversation.com/theres-a-conspiracy-theory- that-...](https://theconversation.com/theres-a-conspiracy-theory-that-the-cia- invented-the-term-conspiracy-theory-heres-why-132117)

<comment><USER5> Original sources work better. Apparently, this where it all came from: [https://web.archive.org/web/20191121033812/https://www.nytim...](https://web.archive.org/web/20191121033812/https://www.nytimes.com/1977/12/26/archives/cable- sought-to-discredit-critics-of-warren-report.html)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I'm sure that even if we lived in (or better: actively maintained) a much more sane and just world, some people, because they're sick or for other reasons, would still try to find fault with it. But it wouldn't spread like a wildfire.

The rich are getting richer, people who start wars of aggression and whatnot aren't punished, companies have battalions of lawyers and Jane Doe has nothing, we are on the course for environmental collapse and mass extinction, and so on. These are shorthands for huge and very much real issues. And yes, conspiracy theories aren't helping, either, and many people spouting them don't _really_ want to roll up their sleeves and turn this ship around. But that's also true for many people obsessing about conspiracy theorists, too.

Let's say the emperor is naked. Most people say variations of "nice clothes! maybe some issues here and there, but nothing major". Some people go "he's butt naked!". And yet others go "he's wearing planet Jupiter as a hat!". The latter are obviously wrong, but it's still just so awkward when the people who think he has nice clothes on start to laugh at those thinking he is wearing Jupiter as a hat, and lump everyone who doesn't think he's wearing nice clothes into that category. It's as if the mainstream is using these even sicker people to pretend it itself is not sick, contrary to the mountains of evidence.

<comment><USER12> > and many people spouting them don't really want to roll up their sleeves and > turn this ship around

I don't know if I agree with you here.

> It's as if the mainstream is using these even sicker people to pretend it > itself is not sick, contrary to the mountains of evidence.

I feel quite strongly that this is happening.

<comment><USER11> > > and many people spouting them don't really want to roll up their sleeves > and turn this ship around

> I don't know if I agree with you here.

Would it help if "many" was changed to "some"? I was thinking of people who are more interested in scapegoats than anything, but I didn't mean to make a point about distribution, it was just to acknowledge that it isn't black and white.

<comment><USER12> Yes It does make it a little better.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I have a cousin is into conspiracy theories and this explains him very accurately.

He is highly intelligent and used to be very analytical but got sidetracked in his life. Anxiety, disappointment and disenfranchisement describes his current state. Year after he became unemployed he started to watch X-files and all kind of conspiracy related entertainment. It was just entertainment. He saw it was silly. Then became History Channel and conspiracy internet tubers and all kinds of serious conspiracy stuff and it became more real to him.

Five years later he is deeply into that stuff. When we talk about it, he can follow my thinking perfectly and usually realizes that those theories are silly and laughs it off. Few hours later he is back into it. It's like he has tracks in his brain. He has walked the path so many times that his thinking goes back to the same things over and over. Maybe conspiracy theories protect him from negative emotions and facts of his situation as long as he keeps thinking them. He is harmless and nice person but his world view is crazy.

<comment><USER14> In this particular case then maybe it's worth (generally, not saying you in particular) how he became anxious and disenfranchised. Maybe the problem isn't the people themselves, but the systematic circumstances that lead people down this road. If there's an upstream problem, then it's better to work on a fix for that than to out of hand dismiss people as crazy.

<comment><USER15> > Maybe the problem isn't the people themselves, but the systematic > circumstances that lead people down this road.

What is the difference? Systemic circumstances define us if they occur for long enough.

<comment><USER14> But empathy would dictate that we don't blame the victim of those circumstances and work to change those such that the victim is defined by a different set.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> The entire concept of "conspiracy theories" is a persuasive device. Calling someone a conspiracy theorist isn't an argument, it's a rhetorical trick to discredit and disqualify the target, independent of the truth value of the target's claim. Or, as Harry Frankfurt calls it, bullshit.

I think I'm going to have to expand my list of normative sciences to four:

1) Logic, the normative science of what is true.

2) Aesthetic, the normative science of what is beautiful.

3) Ethic, the normative science of what is good.

4) Rhetoric, the normative science of what can be persuaded.

To be rigorous, which I admit often isn't worth the effort, one would have to examine a so-called conspiracy theory along every one of those axes that's germane.

<comment><USER17> >The entire concept of "conspiracy theories" is a persuasive device. Calling someone a conspiracy theorist isn't an argument, it's a rhetorical trick to discredit and disqualify the target, independent of the truth value of the target's claim. Or, as Harry Frankfurt calls it, bullshit.

Great analysis

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Why is it so weird that people will turn to non-mainstream sources to explain a world that has been screwing them over for decades while mainstream sources say everything is better than ever?

[https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most- us...](https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us-workers- real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/)

<comment><USER19> Who is claiming things are universally better?

<comment><USER20> Stephen Pinker. Hans Rosling.

<comment><USER19> I don't know about the first one, but Rosling is right. The world as a whole is doing better than it ever has. If you, personally, are about to be hit by a 2 ton truck, that's probably of not much comfort to you.

But it doesn't make him wrong.

<comment><USER20> Just out of interest: you posed the question 'who is claiming that things are universally better?' and you are now acknowledging that you are aware of the arguments of a very mainstream (TED Talks, etc) source.

Why did you pose that question in response to the OP's explanation that some people are frustrated at the disconnect between their lives and the very standard narrative of a world which has benefitted from 'progress' in recent history?

<comment><USER19> Because there is a huge burden of proof when you say "universally". It's disingenuous to make claims such as those about Rosling. Risking was basically fighting the 24/7 negative news cycle but it would be ridiculous to claim he said everyone was better off. What he was saying was: things aren't going to crap as you keep hearing and reading and statistically (key word: statistically!), for the whole globe, things are kind of looking up.

<comment><USER20> Do you think that your introduction of the word 'universally' accurately reflected the ideas expressed by the person to whom you were responding?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Scientific American has changed its coverage drastically in the last few yeard. If you look at the headlines, there's an incredible amount of articles that discuss society, racism, government,etc. It's not science. This article is yet another example.

<comment><USER22> I find Scientific American has been deeply disappointing for 5 years if not more. They infrequnetly cover meaningful science, and when they do try their work is full of errors.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> If human language can be manipulated for commercial gain, it will be. Taken to its logical conclusion, the economically contested term ceases to have any meaning. Think of SEO search keywords or fashionable technology buzzwords (cloud, big data, AI).

The adversarial weaponization of language by economically motivated actors should not be confused with the use of language for communication. Real humans have an amazing ability to communicate even on noisy channels.

</comment><comment><USER24> I do not believe in all conspiracy theories and I do not ignore all conspiracy theories.

When you understand that there are certain unprovable things and layers of gatekeepers for what is called "news". You have to connect the dots - and some would call it conspiracy theory.

<comment><USER15> I think the attack on "news" gatekeepers is a red herring. The National Enquirer has long been one of these, but they have never had any legitimate journalism credentials.

I think it's more important to distinguish that there are good faith investigations into conspiracies and there are bad faith investigations (more commonly called conspiracy theories, but this terminology is overloaded to muddy the difference).

Good faith investigations acknowledge there are limits to what government/power/authority is reasonably able to do. Conspiracy theorists tend to attribute an impossibly high level of coordination, organization, ability to execute with no leaks, believe contradictory theories, accept complex assertions while rejecting simpler ones, etc. Additionally, people who believe in one conspiracy theory are likely to believe in many. I would argue that there's a pathology in attributing the worst intentions to everyone in power and an inability for believers to impartially weigh evidence against their beliefs, so they aren't incentivized to Only believe hypotheses with more coherence.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> If you want to be able to tell if a story is conspiracy or not ignore the messenger of the theory. Integrate knowledge of psychology, behavioral biology and basic physics. You're going to find that a lot of conspiracy theories are easy to prove or disprove.

</comment><comment><USER26> It seems to me that there are two kinds of conspiracy theories which should not be conflated.

On the one hand, there are theories which postulates a conspiracy to explain the available evidence. Nothing wrong with that, sometimes that is the correct explanation.

On the other hand, there are theories which invoke a conspiracy to invalidate the available evidence. Such theories are unfalsifiable, no evidence could possibly prove them wrong because all contrary evidence is just part of the conspiracy. This kind is problematic because its necessarily unhinged from any evidence or reality.

</comment><comment><USER27> I love how easily people see through bullshit articles like this. So tired of coincidence theorists!

I ought to do a post some day: "I'm one of HN's resident conspiracy theorists, ama."

<comment><USER10> What do you think is the theory you believe that is most outside the mainstream?

<comment><USER27> Mainstream of of which community? Some things that seem out there to most people are regularly accepted by the conspiracy community, and vice versa sometimes too.

Almost any conspiracy theory of any depth is outside the mainstream.

The furthest in both cases would probably have to do with aliens (whether real or fake but useful aka project blue beam). Or perhaps quantum mechanic related phenomenon. Not saying these are ones I subscribe to but giving examples.

I'll give you an example of one that is very much not accepted: Pizzagate (please don't misunderstand, I don't necessarily think pizzagate is "real", I think it very much could be a limited-hangout, etc). To many it sounds completely crazy, beyond ever being considered. For those of us who are aware of the larger pattern it matches though, it fits into that pattern. A great example of a similar case in which we have deductive evidence is the Dutroux affair (aka the Belgian X-Files). Epstein was on the periphery of the same type of operation, but was more of a front man/procurer, much like Dutroux. I could list many similar examples (Franklin scandal, finders cult, Saville, Jersey, Kinkora, Elm Guest House, Roy Cohn, etc) where we have witnesses and testimony and evidence that usually got buried, assassinated, etc if it ever got closer to the heart and away from the front men/fall guys (and gals, looking at you Ghislaine Maxwell).

This is the power of inductive logic.

<comment><USER10> Yes sorry, I meant outside the non-conspiracy community.

For example (apologies if this is rude to ask, I don't know!) which of these would you subscribe to;

\- Neil Armstrong did not walk on the moon

\- JFK was not killed by Lee Harvey Oswald

\- WTC towers were destroyed in controlled demolition

\</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment>-----

EDIT: nevermind, you edited your comment - thanks!

</comment><comment><USER28> What notion is really interesting to me is the underlying believe that if "everything would be back to normal if those people responsible for this mess were exposed and removed". The adversity to accepting that most of life is just random and that evil things are a normal part of it is probably one fundamental trait of a conspiracy theory believer.

</comment><comment><USER29> Cool story. We'd still believe the Earth is flat (some idiots still do) if we went by this logic and didn't question the status-quo.

<comment><USER18> Idiots == people who are questioning the status quo of their day?

<comment><USER30> If the status quo is trivially provable, and has been for thousands of years, yes.

<comment><USER18> If it were trivially provable to these people they wouldn't question it.

<comment><USER31> I'm sure we all wish that were true.

There are people who have flown around the world many times who have gone down the flat earth rabbit hole.

Unfortunately the people who aren't confident they can actually learn about what they are afraid of, or correctly judge probabilities of things being true, spend their energy choosing who to believe instead of gathering information and forming a coherent understanding.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> I wonder if investigative journalists also share 'a cluster of psychological features' too? Inquiring minds would like to know...

You can spot 'hallmarks of flaws' in official narratives, such as internal contradictions in the "evidence" and contentions based on shaky assumptions, and this makes thinking people question the mainstream media...

</comment><comment><USER33> Maybe so.

I wonder if people who accept official or authoritative accounts of everything in spite of overwhelming evidence also share a cluster of psychological features?

</comment><comment><USER8> This article reads like string theory from big bang theory. A search for one explanation that explains all.

With humans things rarely fit neatly.

</comment><comment><USER34> > A 2017 study reported that believing in work-related conspiracies—such as > the idea that managers make decisions to protect their own interests—causes > individuals to feel less committed to their job.

That's not a conspiracy. It's a prior about the intent of others. Given that we humans are generally selfish, it's a justified prior.

</comment><comment><USER35> can the opposite also be true, that people who refuse to accept true conspiracies may also be anxious to preserve their worldview, ignore contradiction, and eschew rational analysis for emotion ladden thinking?

e.g. this is the popular portrayal of religious people who refuse to accept the claim their religions are massive lies made up to control and console

in which case these psycological factors may just be generally indicative of people who have trouble accepting the truth when it contradicts their cherished worldview, conspiracy or otherwise

on the other hand, if someone possesses this psychological makeup, and refuses to accept a certain proposition, i am not sure there is much we can conclude from this study. maybe they are being irrational, or maybe not. we would have to examine the actual reasons they reject the belief, and not rely on psychoanalysis, since if we did so it would ironically be irrational on our part

</comment><comment><USER36> Remember that the NSA spying thing was considered a conspiracy theory until the snowden leaks. Same goes for things like the Glomar Explorer. Being aware that there are conspiracies and being sceptical is not a mental defect, but rather a successful evolutionary strategy.

<comment><USER37> From the article:

> Encouraging analytic thinking may also help. In a 2014 study published in > Cognition, Swami and his colleagues recruited 112 people for an experiment. > First, they had everyone fill out a questionnaire that evaluated how > strongly they believed in various conspiracy theories. A few weeks later the > subjects came back in, and the researchers split them into two groups. One > group completed a task that included unscrambling words in sentences > containing words such as "analyze" and "rational," which primed them to > think more analytically.

Also:

> In addition, false conspiracy theories have several hallmarks, Lewandowsky > says. Three of them are particularly noticeable. First, the theories include > contradictions. For example, some deniers of climate change argue that there > is no scientific consensus on the issue while framing themselves as heroes > pushing back against established consensus. Both cannot be true. A second > telltale sign is when a contention is based on shaky assumptions. Trump, for > instance, claimed that millions of illegal immigrants cast ballots in the > 2016 presidential election and were the reason he lost the popular vote. > Beyond the complete lack of evidence for such voting, his assumption was > that multitudes of such votes—if they existed—would have been for his > Democratic opponent. Yet past polls of unauthorized Hispanic immigrants > suggest that many of them would have voted for a Republican candidate over a > Democratic one... A third sign that a claim is a far-fetched theory, rather > than an actual conspiracy, is that those who support it interpret evidence > against their theory as evidence for it. When the van of the alleged mail > bomber Cesar Sayoc was found in Florida plastered with Trump stickers, for > instance, some individuals said this helped to prove that Democrats were > really behind the bombs. "If anyone thinks this is what a real > conservative's van looks like, you are being willfully ignorant. Cesar Sayoc > is clearly just a fall guy for this obvious false flag," one person posted > on Twitter.

This article is about encouraging skepticism and analysis, not discouraging it. Notice how it discusses _false_ conspiracy theories, as an acquiescence that sometimes conspiracy theories could become truth.

<comment><USER5> > acquiescence that sometimes conspiracy theories could become truth

If there was an intention of acknowledging the truth behind some theories, they would / should have come right out and said so. As it is, the article is sending a much clearer message that 'if people were to think analytically, they wouldn't believe conspiracy theories'.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> Why can't we just call them myths? Conspiracy theory has become so dismissive, it can't be good for truth overall

</comment><comment><USER39> "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False" by John Ioannidis

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/)

Just a reminder!8-))

</comment><comment><USER40> Cigarettes causing cancer was once a conspiracy theory.

</comment><comment><USER41> (sarcastic) summary: If you don't take things at fac(k)e value, you're not part of the herd and would rather check the facts: you a conspirationist.

</comment><comment><USER42> Wow, not even a quarter of the way through and I'm seeing what would most charitably described as "lies by omission". Also, I don't know if the writer would prefer I assume she is stupid, or that she conspired with her editor to structure things in such a way as to drive traffic through outrage - <USER2> example:

"...claiming that Jewish people were stealthily supporting illegal immigrants."

Well I'll go ahead and touch the third rail. There were a lot of non-profits involved, some would obviously fit the the conspiracy theorist's description (Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society for example), others had 990s that further strengthened the theory. Was there a shadowy conspiracy? I doubt it, the majority of involved non-profits were classic left-wing open-borders types, some communists, and a bunch of Christian alliances. So why lie instead of presenting the results of a statistical sample?

"...positing that high-ranking Democratic Party officials were involved in a child sex ring..."

Pizzagate was a 4chan inside joke that got taken seriously by people who already had cause to be suspicious, and Epstein didn't kill himself. It reminds me of something Saddam Hussein admitted under FBI interrogation: he wanted the US to think he had WMDs, because that would cause his regional adversaries to think the same. Obviously he miscalculated. After years of weird spirit cooking talk and association with known degenerates, people are going to start thinking you mean it.

Finally: does anybody remember the satanic panic? Surprise, there was a government cover-up of weird cult ritual stuff involving abused children. If you said so, for almost 30 years, you were a wacky conspiracy theorist... until the FBI released the file to zero interest: [https://vault.fbi.gov/the- finders](https://vault.fbi.gov/the-finders)

</comment><comment><USER43> When i was little (14 or so) i used to read a lot about alien and Egyptian mummies conspiracy theories, about various phenomena and was fascinated by them. As i grew older i realised they were just stories. Wondering if some people never left that intellectual development stage. A certain degree of suspicion and caution around what governments do is healthy. But strongly believing there are microchips in vaccines, and 5G networks are meant to cause viruses that's just adults with the analytical power of a child.

<comment><USER35> The quantum magnetic dot is not exactly a microchip, but it does provide a weak signal that can be read electronically, and could be administered during a vaccination injection

UPDATE: here's the MIT article on their research. [http://news.mit.edu/2019/storing-vaccine-history- skin-1218](http://news.mit.edu/2019/storing-vaccine-history-skin-1218)

"MIT engineers have developed a way to store medical information under the skin, using a quantum dot dye that is delivered, along with a vaccine, by a microneedle patch. The dye, which is invisible to the naked eye, can be read later using a specially adapted smartphone."

<comment><USER8> What I read is that the so called quantum dot is just invisible ink.

A stamp that tells the next health care worker if a person has been vaccinated, when, the type...

My friend who believes in stuff like these seems to have a thinking impairment in some areas. He latches on to the first idea his mind likes and never lets go.

Example was two days ago. He downloaded GTA3 game.

The file was a 147mb 7zip archive. Which magically expanded 147mb expanded to over 2GB after he ran a batch file!

He immediately started singing the praise of 7zip.

Without knowing any detail I told him the uploader was the wizard not 7zip.

He sent me the setup.bat file and the stuff became clear.

The uploader converted wav to MP3. MPG videos to low quality MP4.

The setup.bat used ffmpeg to upscale things.

No logical explanation from me changed his mind.

Last straw, told him to uninstall 7Zip and run setup.bat.

That was the end of the discussion.

<comment><USER35> Here's the research article from MIT. [http://news.mit.edu/2019/storing- vaccine-history-skin-1218](http://news.mit.edu/2019/storing-vaccine-history- skin-1218)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> Another ad hoc explanation is sold as science. Just because a group of people share some features, those set of features won't explain any thing.

</comment><comment><USER45> I'm not convinced all the recent research on "conspiracy theorists" is objective science. It seems politically motivated to me.

What bugs me the most is that authoritarians will use this as "scientific proof" that people who question their government are mentally ill.</comment>


The Darkhotel APT - <AUTHOR> http://securelist.com/blog/research/66779/the-darkhotel-apt/ <comment><USER2> For those that are interested in a more technical analysis of the malware, infection vectors, and C&C infrastructure check out the whitepaper linked at the top. It goes into significantly more detail than the main article.

Below is a link to the PDF directly (I know the URL looks shady):

[http://25zbkz3k00wn2tp5092n6di7b5k.wpengine.netdna- cdn.com/f...](http://25zbkz3k00wn2tp5092n6di7b5k.wpengine.netdna- cdn.com/files/2014/11/darkhotel_kl_07.11.pdf)

If you manage security infrastructure for your organization and want details on C&C URLs, compromised certs used for signing, and relevant file hashes check out the technical apendix they published, also linked at the top of the article (and below):

[http://25zbkz3k00wn2tp5092n6di7b5k.wpengine.netdna- cdn.com/f...](http://25zbkz3k00wn2tp5092n6di7b5k.wpengine.netdna- cdn.com/files/2014/11/darkhotelappendixindicators_kl.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER3> Interesting bits from the Technical Appendix:

\- If the Information Stealer detects that the current system default codepage is 0412 (Korean) it terminates.

\- Also regarding the Information Stealer: "If the server reply contains a keyword «minmei» it continues sending additional information. «Minmei» may be a reference to a popular Japanese anime and manga known as «The Super Dimension Fortress Macross»."

\- The Enhanced Keylogger's debug info path was left compiled into the binary: "d:\KerKey\KerKey(일반)\KerKey\release\KerKey.pdb" (note 일반 means "General" in Korean).

I'm unsure whether this is intentional misdirection or simply due to bad OPSEC, but this kind of stuff sticks out because it indicates a fairly large- scale and international APT campaign may be coming out of somewhere in Asia besides China.

</comment><comment><USER4> As much as hyperbole security marketing is becoming over-used these days, I actually enjoyed the animation in the video. Very cyberpunk.

<comment><USER5> Convenient wallpaper: [http://i.imgur.com/7ad0Bs1.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/7ad0Bs1.jpg)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Use software like Qubes, Bromium to sign on the malware-infested hotel network, then activate VPN.

</comment><comment><USER7> Good writeup. Kaspersky performs good malware campaign analysis without sensationalism.

Also what a novel idea, just wait on the porous hotel network for your execs to come in. I wonder what country's work this is.

<comment><USER5> > Kaspersky performs good malware campaign analysis without sensationalism.

Did you play the video?

<comment><USER7> No, was it sensationalized? Dammit.

I never watch the videos on news sites. Too disruptive for my work environment.

<comment><USER5> It's a wise policy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Why should we believe this? They admit that they have been unable to find any "dark hotel" infrastructure. What is the basis for their claim that the attacks take place in hotels?

<comment><USER2> Check out the whitepaper they published along with the article. It goes into more detail about the attacks. It appears they have a record of the traffic from the hotels' networks, probably from an IDS or something similar. Some relevant quotes from the whitepaper:

 _" The Darkhotel APT's precise malware spread was observed in several hotels' networks, where visitors connecting to the hotel's Wi-Fi were prompted to install software updates to popular software packages."_ \- page 5

 _" As a part of an ongoing investigation, our research led us to embedded iframes within hotel networks that redirected individuals' web browsers to phony installers. The attackers were very careful with the placement of these iframes and executables on trusted resources - the hotels' network login portals themselves."_ \- page 6

 _" We observed traces of a couple of these incidents in late 2013 and early 2014 on a victim hotel's network. The attackers set up the environment and hit their individual targets with precision. As soon as their target's stay was over and the attack-frame was closed, the attackers deleted their iframe placement and backdoored executables from the hotel network."_ \- page 6

<comment><USER8> Thank you.</comment></comment></comment>


What HP Must Do to Make Amends for Its Self-Destructing Printers - <AUTHOR> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/09/what-hp-must-do-make-amends-its-self-destructing-printers <comment><USER2> Printer cartridges are emblematic of the (sadly widespread) tendency for companies to build things that are _obviously_ wasteful, and clear alternatives should be available.

Every time you have to "throw away" something that looks 70% reusable (or in the case of printer ink, not even fully empty), it's aggravating. We really need to push _all_ companies to build reuse deeply into their products so that none of them feels pressured to go that route just to stay competitive. And if competition is not an issue, and it really is just a scam for more money, executives need to be going to jail.

It is not hard to imagine a slightly modified printer cartridge that saves virtually all of the electronics and casing, and just plugs in a new ink pod; or, one that has a "gas tank" kind of port where you can add more ink. They just need to do it.

<comment><USER3> I've spent the last 16 years at HP in inkjet printhead manufacturing and R&D. Roughly speaking, we've come up with two models:

\- disposable cartridges with printheads (what most people have at home), here we have to recoup the cost of the disposed silicon printhead and the low initial price of the printer

\- permanent printheads (what you're asking for) and disposable ink "tanks" of various capacities, here the challenge is to make sure the printhead doesn't get ruined before the printer gets replaced. Third party ink can be a contributing factor to printhead health

We now also have an ink-subscription model where you pay at some anticipated level of ink use and you get a replacement cartridge when we think you need it.

<comment><USER4> Obviously I'm older, but I'd _prefer_ to pay a little more, and give you some profit, for a printer that's built to last, with some metal, rather than <£100 for a near cost pile of fragile plastic as the foundation of my ink subscription - with ink cartridges that seem to get smaller but more expensive with each passing year.

Then pay a reasonable price for cartridge with printhead ongoing, otherwise, if I'm successful keeping the printer as long as possible, I'm still recouping the low cost of the printer long past the point I bought enough ink to do so.

I don't need high throughput, heavy duty, as I don't print that much any more, so buying from the business range isn't usually sensible.

<comment><USER5> I bought a color laser printer for a few hundred bucks and despite almost never having to print anything it's one of the better purchases I've made.

It just works. It's not wasteful. And it won't dry out from lack of use. I figure I'll break even over buying ink-jet printers and cartridges in another year or so. Even if everything costs more in short term, it's so much less wasteful.

<comment><USER6> I tried to do the same thing but bought a cheap <$100 mono laser. I pretty much never print, maybe a page a month, if that.

It's only a year old and now it won't suck up the paper properly. I have to literally stick my hands into it and feed the paper in page-by-page.

The thing has successfully printed less than 20 pages and it's already not working.

It's 2016 and Samsung can't make a rubber roller that works. And I don't want to buy another just to have the same thing happen.

<comment><USER5> I spent about $400 -- I figure a sub $100 laser printer is much the same thing as buying a cheap inkjet.

<comment><USER6> I wrongfully assumed that an appliance manufactured and sold to perform a single task would be able to perform that task.

That was a mistake.

<comment><USER5> I think this whole thread is about how that's a mistake! You get what you pay for and cheap printers are crap; they're so cheap they're virtually useless.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I once got a full refund on a laptop outside of its warranty period because a software update (Windows 8.1) effectively bricked the machine. I demanded it under the UK Sale of Goods Act, which states that a product must be fit for purpose, which it clearly no longer was once the automatic update had happened.

I do wonder if this can be more broadly applied to consumer products that effectively change their behaviour after a software update. Is it the same product you originally bought? I would contest not. And surely lawyers could have a field day with this one?

<comment><USER8> The issue is why do people in UK/USA put up with this Orwellian customer control business model?

In Asia if a company were to do these things the business would be burnt to the ground, and/or family selling the inferior by design products.

...

This is silly, the printer biz has always been 'give away the camera, and take the first born when they need film'

You go abroad ASIA and every printer ink or cartridge, as a bladder attached outside where you have an infinite pool of ink/powder for printing, you buy the printer, and walk out the store with the bladder attached.

Now only in the USA do they sell the SIM card for the phone by ID, or make it a felony to put free ink or powder in a printer. HP? Canon and all have been doing this for years, but why is it that in USA you still walk out of the store with a boxed printer that has cartridge with a 1/2 life of 10 prints and then the ink/powder costs the same as the original printer?

The USA like the Epipen fiasco is FULL retard on screwing people, HP is just on the band-wagon.

...

From poor medical care, to Epipen, to all the silly things that USA/UK people put with, its amazing the CORP Fascist government has such willing lemmings to go along with this BS.

<comment><USER9> Because, from healthcare, to consumer products, to software, to books, the US is paying full price to subsidize the cost to much of the world. The US is the profit center that makes possible the steeply-discounted-almost-free sales elsewhere.

<comment><USER10> The "full price" here was 15 percent of GlaxoSmithKline's revenue last year. They spent 40 percent on marketing. When can this myth die?

[http://www.bizjournals.com/triangle/news/2016/07/19/where- gs...](http://www.bizjournals.com/triangle/news/2016/07/19/where-gsk-ranks-in- r-d-spending-against-sales-and.html)

<comment><USER11> Probably about the same time as people stop equating "general and administration expenses" with "marketing". Marketing is a subset of that.

<comment><USER10> Yes, it also includes buying lunches for doctors and private jets for the executive staff. What it does not include is R&D in any shape or form. The fact is R&D isn't making drug prices high.

<comment><USER11> Oy. It also includes paying the janitors, the property taxes, and the myriad of other costs that come with running a company.

> The fact is R&D isn't making drug prices high.

Neither are their SGA expenses. The two combined are just under half GSK's revenue.

Anyway, that's irrelevant to trying to score cheap points with a false equivalence.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> A brother MFC is $250, is sturdier and does not hate me as a consumer. Changing a toner is $50 per cartridge. I recommend it to every person looking for a printer: Buy a laser printer.

<comment><USER13> Another Brother laser printer user here. I did have some strange networking problems when I initially configured mine for wireless use. The Macs on the network consistently lost the ability to connect.

My son eventually resolved the problem, though I never bothered to ask how. Never had that issue with Canon, but so far, I much happier with the Brother. The toner cartridge lasts WAY longer than the Canon inkjet and per-age cost is less. I did give up color, but I don't need that often enough to worry about - I can just print at work or go to FedEx/Kinkos.

<comment><USER14> I have same zombie connectivity issue with Mac clients. Have to walk over and bounce the printer. Doesn't happen with Windows.

Would love to know your son's fix.

<comment><USER13> I think he gave the Brother a fixed IP (using the admin tool on the wireless router, maybe). We didn't change anything on the Macs themselves. If he's around this evening, I'll ask.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> HP can't make amends. They simply need to be sued for anti-competitive practices and violations of the Magnusson-Moss anti-tying provisions.

<comment><USER16> I've heard this before, but I'm not aware of any lawsuits that have compelled any printer companies to stop this practice of tying their brand ink to the printer. I'm pretty sure Magnusson-Moss says you can't void warranties, in effect it's not legal to shift liability or burden proof, to disadvantage the consumer. In the case of printers, the warranty is not voided by using 3rd party ink, what they've basically done is add DRM to their printer where it won't use 3rd party ink.

So now the consumer is in this position where if they could get the printer to use 3rd party ink, and the printer dies, the printer company can't void the warranty due to 3rd party ink; but because of DRM and DMCA chances are the user can't legally compel the printer to use 3rd party ink anyway.

<comment><USER15> "I've heard this before, but I'm not aware of any lawsuits that have compelled any printer companies to stop this practice of tying their brand ink to the printer."

Why do you think I said they need to be sued for such a thing? Specifically because nobody has, yet. I know what HP does Re: their product; I've worked for them in the laptop repair department handling the water damage claims. Let me tell you, they did EVERYTHING they could to get out of honoring warranty and paid-for user damage warranty extensions. I'll guarantee you the second someone tries to return the printer for being defective and HP discovers that they used a 3rd-party cartridge, they'll try to get out of the warranty claim. The Magnusson-Moss act specifically states "Under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, the warranty cannot be conditioned to a specific brand of parts, services or vehicle modifications unless those parts or services are provided free of charge." HP charges for the ink carts. I would bet a good attorney would make this a simple case.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Instructions for rolling back the firmware, which fixed the issue for me: [https://www.brozkeff.net/2016/09/01/how-to-downgrade- firmwar...](https://www.brozkeff.net/2016/09/01/how-to-downgrade-firmware-on- hp-officejet-pro-8610-to-allow-using-old-or-refilled-cartridges/)

</comment><comment><USER18> I generally like the EFF, and I'm a member (albeit at a low paying level)... but if you're really unhappy about this, isn't it better just to stop buying HP printer products?

Rather than being so activist & "omg outrage!", why doesn't the EFF publish a list of printers that the EFF currently does recommend? Almost like the Wirecutter does with their product testing reviews. (It sounds like Epson might be one alternative with the EcoTank range.) They could evaluate products against EFF values (driver compatibility with Linux / BSD maybe?) and it would be a more positive & productive response than social media outrage.

<comment><USER19> Because consumer choice is a very weak weapon against your freedoms being taken away. Political action is what corporations fear, in particular the threat of organized support behind ideas to regulate them more heavily.

Edit: RMS quote: _" All in all, I think it is a mistake to defend people's rights with one hand tied behind our backs, using nothing except the individual option to say no to a deal. We should use democracy to organize and together impose limits on what the rich can do to the rest of us. That's what democracy was invented for!"_

<comment><USER20> That's kind of overstating things, isn't it? Yes, what HP did was balls-up stupid, and I'll think hard before buying anything from them, but companies have liberties too. They have rights to free speech (you don't want the government telling newspapers what to print), and they have rights to sell what they want, just as we have rights to not buy the merde they try to force on us. Twitter has the right to shut down speech on its network that it doesn't like, and that's not a First Amendment issue. Nobody's liberties are being taken away: rather, someone's liberties are being exercised.

Now, I do think that a lawsuit may be in order here, because it seems quite plausible that HP acted deceptively. But that's not "our rights being taken away", which is primarily an issue related to the guys with guns (i.e., the government). This isn't that: rather, it's a company lying to us, and trying to get us to buy their product on false pretenses.

<comment><USER21> How about we start characterizing "company lying to us" as theft, and put them in actual jail for it, then?

If you want to treat corporations like people with liberties, let's make basic laws like fraud and theft have consequences. We shoot and choke to death people selling cigarettes or cds 'illegally' on the side of the street why can't Wells Fargo executives go to jail for theft?

<comment><USER22> But financial crimes are illegal. Could you point out a specific person/case?

Wells Fargo fired 5300 employees and paid a $185 million fine.

<comment><USER10> Wells Fargo's shareholders fired 5300 employees and paid a $185 million fine. As far as I'm aware the CEO kept his job and bonus.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I want to know if this is classed as fraud or not. According to the original story I read, the printer allegedly reported that the cartridge was either broken or missing, and the system was programmed to lie in this way on purpose.

Lying to a person in order to gain pecuniary advantage is fraud. Is this analysis correct?

</comment><comment><USER24> how much does it cost to setup a factory to produce a half decent printer- scanner with ink cartridges and ink supplies? this entire industry is broken. surely basic printers are so well understood by now that every component is a commodity?

for the majority of people, a printer that simply just works is good enough. you do not need to upgrade every year. you do not need the latest in ink technology - you want photo prints, do it properly online.

manufacturers like HP et al only introduce different printer models / cartridges / drivers etc etc to keep people upgrading.

so, what's the cost of doing this? i'd consider it a gift to humanity.

<comment><USER25> Imagine playing minesweeper on advanced difficulty, blindfolded, but where all the mines are patents. It would be a bit like that unless you wanted 25 year old printer technology.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> I don't understand how this can be a thing.

You can buy and use an oil filter from any source for your car. I think it's illegal to require original manufacturer parts.

Yet HP is doing exactly that, and in an underhanded way. And this fight, over printer ink, has been going on for years.

How can this be?

<comment><USER27> This is one of HP's top revenue generators, while the rest of the company is in a slow downward spiral (and has been for years). You better believe that they're going to do whatever {they can,it takes} to preserve that revenue.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Why is the EFF getting involved now? HP has been doing stuff like this for well over 15 years. And why are they calling for apologies and promises? They should be calling for open source software and firmware so things like this can't happen.

<comment><USER29> EFF is calling for HP to publicly promise not to invoke section 1201 of DMCA against researchers and aftermarket vendors. This is necessary in order for anyone in the U.S. to develop open-source software or firmware for HP printers.

<comment><USER14> Aha. Thank you for explaining.

I've been wondering why there are no open source projects. After some casual searching, I found one DIY project that uses a commercially available inkjet cartridge.

Previously, I looked on ebay to see what OEM toner drums etc would cost. It might just be cheaper, faster to buy a Brother laser and replace the smarts.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> I notice that the letter never alleges that HP's actions are illegal, only that they are anti-consumer.

Can anyone chime in on the legality of what HP has done? Aren't bait-and- switch tactics generally illegal?

<comment><USER31> The information included with the product likely states that it should only be used with HP inks. No bait, no switch.

<comment><USER30> should, or must?

I've seen plenty of products that say you _should_ use only manufacturer- approved products.

But I know in the U.S. manufacturers aren't allowed to void warranties just because a third-party component is used.

But can manufacturers really step around that by disabling the ability to use third-party components?

<comment><USER31> The point would be that they weren't claiming working with other inks as a feature, which really undermines the bait and switch argument.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> I've made a solemn vow never to purchase a HP product again, after I discovered that the printer I'd bought (from a major UK retailer) was region- locked to US ink. Which you can't buy in the UK.

I threw that thing into the e-waste bin with some force when it finally broke.

<comment><USER33> I firmly believe that the best use of those printers is disassembling them and taking their stepper motors for use in DIY 3D printers and other CNC machines.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> Epson with their ink-tank system is where the future is at. I see this being used widely around people I know.

<comment><USER35> Why? Color laser printers are getting fairly cheap (mine's a basic printer, granted, but it was quite a bit cheaper than the cheapest EcoTank models). You don't have to worry about your ink drying out or print heads getting clogged.

<comment><USER36> That's great if you print a couple of hundred pages a year, but if you print a couple of hundred pages _a day_ a cheap color laser printer will be very expensive to run and it'll break down often enough to be a significant problem.

No doubt your printer serves you well, but that doesn't mean it's a good solution for everyone.

<comment><USER37> If you're printing a couple of hundred pages a day, I'd assume its for work and that's part of the cost of doing business. In my personal life I print out like a dozen pages a year? Mostly boarding passes.

<comment><USER38> The nice thing about inkjets is that they are smaller. I have a Brother HL 5250dn (off the top of my head). I bought it for $75 eight years ago, and I've printed about 30,000 pages through it. Most of those pages were while I was in college and was doing research. Now I print about 100 pages a year, and I mildly resent the printer for all the space it takes up.

On the flip side, my company has a set of 3 hp printers that we use twice a year for printing stuff at the last minute for our two conferences, which are less than a month apart. We have to buy new print cartridges every year, cause the ink dries in the container. I think our cost per page is probably close to a dollar. This year we had to throw out a number of unused cartridges because they dried out in the package, despite being less than 18 months old.

Moral of the story is that inkjets suck no matter what, and the biggest downside of laser printers is their size.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> I stopped buying HP inkjet printers a long time ago. They are horrible.

<comment><USER40> The HP 722c was their last decent inkjet.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> Dell isn't a brand people commonly associate with printers, but I highly recommend their Color Laser printers. You spend $300-$400 upfront, but then you get a machine that talks PostScript and PCL (industry standards -- so no worrying about Linux support or installing special printer driver packages) and can be hooked up to the network (using Ethernet or Wi-Fi, depending on the model), and where each color of toner can be replaced independently.

</comment><comment><USER42> For many years I've steered clear of HP products and voice a strong opinion against them. While HP figures it out, we should also preach against them to our colleagues, friends, family and to all. The only way these companies realize they are in the wrong is if their bottom line is affected, until then, they don't have a lick of empathy.

<comment><USER43> Eh, when it comes to computers (not printers) HP isn't that bad. I'll take HP over Lenovo any day. Although HP wouldn't be my first choice when choosing a computer.

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> Or they could just never never sell anything to an informed party again.

</comment><comment><USER45> There is no practical way for HP to "make amends." I would consider buying an HP printer if they gave me for free, a flawlessly-working printer (or johnny- on-the-spot support and/or enough free replacement printers to achieve the functional equivalent), and 5 years of free ink. In other words, a level of generosity and support that, if they did it for everybody, would put them out of business. Which is probably where they deserve to be. That also, would help make amends.

It would also be okay with me if the whole printer market were regulated into some semblance of normalcy by the government. (Assuming the government is competent and capable of governing the corporate class to which it is currently in thrall... obviously not a valid assumption. Everybody who was all GET BIG GOVERNMENT OFF OUR BACKS - enjoy.)

</comment><comment><USER46> Watch it being completely ignored by HP.

</comment><comment><USER45> Can't sign my name to something with a grammar error:

"...the printers now automatically verify whether its ink cartridges are official HP ink..."

The word "its" has no antecedent to which it refers. Assuming you mean "belonging to the printers" then it should be "their." Though it highlights a factual inaccuracy - the cartridges are not the property of the printer(s), so maybe just say "the" ink cartridges, or better yet, "any installed" ink cartridges.

</comment><comment><USER47> David Packard in "The HP Way"

Chapter 12 Responsibility to Society

...Among the Hewlett-Packard objectives Bill Hewlett and I set down was one recognizing the company's responsibility to be a good Corporate citizen....

...This means being sensitive to the needs and interests of the community; it means applying the highest standards of honesty and integrity to all our relationships with individuals and groups; ...

<comment><USER48> The HP of today is not the same company unfortunately.

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> Full disclosure, I am a former HP Engineer who worked with HP Labs, mostly in the Computer Vision area, and 100% productizing their labs research into viable profit streams. Your milage on my comments may vary. I am not going to attempt to justify what HP does but it will probably sound as though I am (try to remember myself and my entire team were laid off as unprofitable because we were 5% off on our $1 Billion revenue goal, that stung a bit). I will attempt to throw a few business comments that no one is mentioning, and a few engineering thoughts that no one is sharing, into the mix so that you can see an entire picture.

How much would it change your perception if you found out that a good portion of the refill ink market is also supplied by HP? Internally, we used to call HP an Ink seller thinly veiled as a technical company. They make more money in the refill market than they do in the cartridge market, though their gross in the cartridge market is still very high. This is because selling bottles of ink with syringes and instructions to refill is way cheaper than selling new cartridges with the manufacturing of the rather complex pieces in the cartridge, the packaging, the shipping to the stores, and the marketing. So why would they suddenly shoot themselves in the foot and kill that market? I'll get there.

I hear you say "HP makes so much in ink sales they are trying to monopolize the market and squeeze just a bit more revenue out of it!". I hate to break it to you, most people just buy the refills at Walmart or Costco from the giant displays and have no idea that their printers will be borked if they don't. A majority of the refillers refill with an HP authorized refiller (those people you meet in mall kiosks, most are authorized, they won't bork your printer). Actually HP loses far more money from people using crappy ink refills and crappy knock off cartridges and then calling up to customer service and saying their printers were ruined, thus sending out new printers and ink. The cost of the customer service to deal with that alone is so massive for HP it makes one of the main budget line items at all of the board meetings.

So, the technical. Someone in the comments mentions "Why not just build a new printer company! Printing technology can't be that hard!" A further comment says "Oh you could, but wait until the patent lawyers come to get you!" Well, true. A lot of printing technology is patented and pretty locked down. But it's disingenuous to say that printing technology can't be that hard. Imagine the following scenario:

You just bought a brand new iPhone 7 with a 12 MP ultra clear lens. You have a party at your house and snap a photo of your child with their technically inept grandparent. Grandparent says "I don't use the facebooks, and I don't understand mail with an e, print me a copy of that photo!" No problem, your HP printer is wirelessly on your network. You print from your phone onto photo paper.

Where's the hard part of this technical equation? Well a ton of engineering went into that small 12 MP camera, processing, the wireless network for delivery, etc. But hell, you want to be able to print that photo on any old glossy paper you bought from someone, using a knock off cartridge, with any ink they shove into it. And it better come out looking like an Ansel Adams original, or damn it, HP screwed you as a consumer again!

In order for you to get the sharp colors in the right hues with the perfect lines it takes a lot of engineering. In order for you to get the paper to come out dry (either we're talking photo printing or just your black and white document) and not bleed onto the back of the next page in the tray, it takes technology. I'm sorry Cory, but your analogy with the toaster does not hold true. If I get a new toaster and throw bread into it, I only have to try a few dials and settings to get my toast to come out the way I like it. With printing and ink, there are literally thousands of variables from head design to spray to the viscosity of the ink, and on and on and on. Remember for a moment, consumers don't want think about the angle, velocity, and aeration of their red ink, not to mention how to combat humidity to not ruin the viscosity of the ink between the head and the paper (even if it's only for a fraction of a millisecond). They just want a perfect print. And HP just wants their consumers, on the whole, to like their products and not complain to much, and keep on buying stuff.

Now, if you really want to scare the pants off of HP and get them out of this market, digitize everything and stop printing. Get tablets for everyone you know. Use them at work and at home. Print less. This is what really worries them in the market.

<comment><USER50> Yay Stockholm syndrome.

"How much would it change your perception if you found out that a good portion of the refill ink market is also supplied by HP?"

Keeping in mind that the median personal income in the US is around 45k per year, how much would you care whether HP made that printer ink or not if you invested hard-earned salary in a printer several months ago, and stocked up on a few hundred bucks worth of cheaper ink, only to have HP secretly make it obsolete?

<comment><USER49> Now now, let's not get into poor arguments and logical fallacies. First off, read the rest of my comment, there is more to it.

Second, you pose an interesting question. I am assuming this isn't what you did, but let's pretend for a moment that it really is what you did. Let's also assume that HP printers let you use your cheaper ink. Again, you start printing things with your cheaper ink and suddenly your papers are bleeding onto the back of the next page as they sit in the printer tray. Your photo prints don't come out looking like the photos on your screen or your phone. Your prints fade easily. Your prints don't hold up to even a small amount of water dripping on them. Your ink cartridge heads start to gunk up and won't print. Now what do you do? Do realize that you bought cheap ink and that the ink you bought it not up to the quality you wanted? Do you call the cheaper ink manufacturer and complain? Or do you call up HP and complain their your printer breaks?

You are a smart engineer. You would realize that you did not buy a quality ink product and you got what you paid for. But would everyone?

<comment><USER44> >> How much would it change your perception if you found out that a good portion of the refill ink market is also supplied by HP?

It makes my perspective that HP thinks its customers very stupid even stronger... since your comment implies that they charge dramatically more for their on-brand inks than for off-brand inks without adding any extra value.

Apparently you think that HP sells ink at roughly the same price as gold ([http://www.npr.org/2012/05/24/153634897/why-printer-ink- is-t...](http://www.npr.org/2012/05/24/153634897/why-printer-ink-is-the-other- black-gold)) not because of anti-consumer practices, but because they are trying to _protect_ consumers.

And when they do sell it at a lower rate, under a different name, it's to _protect_ the consumers who are too stupid to buy HP's good on-brand ink from ruining their printers. How noble.

You and HP seem to think that, although cars with tens of thousands of components can somehow continue to run even when consumers are stupid enough to buy aftermarket parts, that _printer_ consumers are too stupid to make a decision about 1 part -- even with the aid of state-of-the art ratings systems that allow them to instantly share any problems with the buying community.

Incidentally, when you accuse someone of a logical fallacy or say they have a "poor argument" without bothering to point why, is just a form of name calling directed at the (actual) argument rather than the person. It's a non-argument.

<comment><USER49> My apologies, the fallacy used was ad hominem. By casting doubt on my comment by saying that I have Stockholm Syndrome he is overtly attacking my character by pointing out a psychological issue he perceives that I have, comparing my time with HP to, evidently, kidnapping and being a hostage. That's a poor argument. I should have made it more obvious.

They actually charge exactly the same for all of their ink per ounce (with the variable being the type of ink not the method of distribution), and frankly it is quite a lot more than even what was pointed out in the npr reference you show. A number of their inks make more per ounce than just about anything you can imagine. The reason the off-brand ink refilling cost is less than a new cartridge from a display has to do with packaging and distribution. HP has not figured out any magical way to get away from market forces. When they sell the authorized refill supplies, it is just ink, syringes, and instructions. No cartridge, no packaging, no marketing, no shipping.

Also, I don't believe I made myself clear enough. HP isn't trying to protect consumers. They are attempting to protect themselves from consumers. Remember I said "The cost of the customer service to deal with that alone is so massive for HP it makes one of the main budget line items at all of the board meetings." This isn't some argument to try to protect consumers. HP is out for their bottom line, plain and simple. That is not surprising to me.

Your car argument is interesting. The car maintenance industry is absolutely giant. I don't know about your car, but if I pick the wrong oil, the wrong filter, the wrong fluids in general, or the wrong part, my car stops working. And if I pick the wrong thing in a number of categories my warranty also stops working and if I take it back to the manufacturer, they don't fix it. I can use state of the art ratings systems, that is true, to decide if my purchase will, on the whole, be a good one. That is true.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> Is their any validity to HP's reasoning for these time limits? I know their print cart includes the print head unlike cannon,epson and lexmark.

</comment><comment><USER52> There is a really scary side of that, users are being punished for doing software upgrades.</comment>


Bayes Language Detection of Twitter w/ Python - Better than Google Chromium? - <AUTHOR> http://customer.buzzient.com/buzzient/langstream

<comment><AUTHOR> Blog Post here: [http://buzzientdev.posterous.com/language-detection-of- socia...](http://buzzientdev.posterous.com/language-detection-of-social-media- data)</comment>


Chris Anderson's Free Audiobook [zip] - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/images/multimedia/free/FREE_Audiobook_unabridged.zip

<comment><USER2> More info:

        * 285 MB ZIP files

        * 21 MP3 files, 16 chapters

        * title: The future of Radical price

I'm listening to it right now, so I don't have comments on the content yet

</comment><comment><USER3> Here's a review from Guardian: [http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2009/jun/28/review-free- chri...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2009/jun/28/review-free-chris- anderson)

<comment><USER4> also: [http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2009/07/06/09070...](http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2009/07/06/090706crbo_books_gladwell?currentPage=all)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Who is Chris Anderson, what is this audiobook about and why should I check it out?

<comment><USER6> Lots of useful info about Chris Anderson available via this site: <http://letmegooglethatforyou.com>

Or, if you'd rather not type, you could just click on the Guardian review linked above.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Wow, the Birdman wrote a book?</comment>


Explicitly Conditioned Melody Generation - <AUTHOR> http://www.musicinformatics.gatech.edu/publication/explicitly-conditioned-melody-generation/ <comment><USER2> Here's a quick link to their examples of the melodies generated: [http://bgenchel.github.io/ecmg/results.html](http://bgenchel.github.io/ecmg/results.html)

</comment><comment><USER3> Direct link to paper: [http://www.musicinformatics.gatech.edu/wp- content_nondefault...](http://www.musicinformatics.gatech.edu/wp- content_nondefault/uploads/2019/06/Genchel-et-al.-2019-Explicitly-Conditioned- Melody-Generation-A-Case-S.pdf)</comment>


Google Syncs Google Apps With Outloook - <AUTHOR> http://technologizer.com/2009/06/09/google-syncs-google-apps-with-outloook/

<comment><USER2> Please fix this over-editorialised headline back to the original: "Google Syncs Google Apps With Outloook"

<comment><USER3> Second that. It's not "real-world acknowledgement", it's just that Outlook is a behemoth, and a pain to support.

Outlook users will sure appreciate this, the two percent of them that _care_.

<comment><USER4> Your acknowledgement that Outlook is a behemoth seems to coincide with Outlook being a major part of the real world.

<comment><USER5> Behemoth meaning big, slow, and not something you'd want to get closer than 100 feet of.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> First thing: great, there are indeed too many users for whom Outlook is the email interface.

However, who doesn't Google try and improve the very poor UI of Gmail first? There's no vertical view (humans find reading short columns easier than wide lines), no message body preview, Google calendar is invisible, the whole thing seems quite ghetto when compared even to Hotmail.

<comment><USER6> I disagree. I like Gmail's email interface best, and I like that I can scan many messages quickly ---even on small screens.

But Google publishes a solution: the Google Apps API. Also, since it's email, you can simply import, forward, or sync your Google mail into any other mail application that you like better.</comment></comment>